From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21982 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2002 18:24:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21886 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2002 18:24:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2002 18:24:26 -0000 Received: from cse.cygnus.com (cse.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA17191; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kev@localhost) by cse.cygnus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0IINjS15108; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:23:45 -0700 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:24:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020118182344.ZM15107@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Michael Snyder "Re: GDB 5.1/Core files and ptids (CONT)" (Jan 18, 9:11am) References: <3C485748.776A@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0.1 13Jan97 Caldera) To: Michael Snyder , Takis Psarogiannakopoulos Subject: Re: GDB 5.1/Core files and ptids (CONT) Cc: kevinb@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 On Jan 18, 9:11am, Michael Snyder wrote: > Takis Psarogiannakopoulos wrote: > > Unfortunately it seems that the change of mixed pids to ptids > > has more problems that I thought in the start of this thread. > > I am not sure after that change how any OS's that uses corelow.c > > can debug a multi threaded core file! > > In fact, I think Takis is right. I noticed while doing the > gcore work that the thread IDs from multi-threaded corefiles > on Solaris seemed to be broken, perhaps because corelow > has not been made ptid-aware. Yep, I agree. As I pointed out to Takis in an earlier message, I think the right way to fix it is to modify both corelow.c on the GDB side and elf.c on the bfd side. My suggestion was that instead of naming sections .reg/PIDLWP where PIDLWP is a combined (numeric) pid and lwp identifier that these sections instead be named .reg/PID+LWP where PID is the pid and LWP is the lwp. When the LWP doesn't exist or is simply zero, we simply use .reg/PID as before. (Or we could use .reg/PID+0. It doesn't really matter so long as both sides are in agreement.) Kevin